ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 66
(a) Our Mishnah lists 'Onso u'Sefeiko ve'Shichvas-Zar'o', which are Tamei
once he is already a Zav. Rava defines 'S'feiko' (other than a Safek whether
he had a sighting [of Zivus] or not) - when he had a Safek whether he saw
Zivus or Shichvas-Zera?
(b) When the Tana mentions 'Shichvas-Zar'o', he cannot be referring to
Tum'as Maga - because it is obvious that the Shichvas-Zera of a Zav after
two sightings is Metamei, no less than that of a person who is not a Zav.
(c) And we initially think that he cannot be referring to Tum'as Masa
either - because Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua argue in a Beraisa whether
the Shichvas-Zera of a Zav is Metamei Tum'as Masa or not, and even Rebbi
Yehoshua only holds that it is, because of the possibility that it may
contain drops of Zivus (but not the Shichvas-Zera itself - which our Mishnah
appears to be talking about).
(d) Rebbi Eliezer holds - that he is Tahor anyway.
(a) Rav Ada bar Ahavah therefore connects our Mishnah with the Mishnah in
Zavin, where the Tana says - that someone who sees Zivus within twenty-four
hours of Keri is not Metamei be'Zivah.
(b) When Rav Ada therefore says 'Lomar she'Ein Tolin Bah' he means - that
that Mishnah is confined to the first two sightings of Zivus, but should he
see his third sighting within those twenty-four hours, we do not attribute
it to the previous sighting of Keri.
1. Rav Papa attempts to explain this logically - by ascribing the Mishnah in
Zavin to the Zav's weakness (with which our Tana does not contend if he
already had two sightings of Zivus).
(d) We therefore conclude that Keri precludes Zivus within twenty-four
hours - due to the Pasuk "ve'Hayah Lifnos Erev Yirchatz ba'Mayim" (which is
2. Rava proves Rav Papa (and Rav Ada bar Ahavah) wrong from the very same
Mishnah in Zavin, from the case cited there of the Ger she'Nisgayer - whose
sighting of Zivus *is* counted (even it was the first or the second sighting
after he saw Keri before converting). When he adds 'Ein Lecha Choli Gadol
mi'Zeh', he means that acccording to Rav Papa and Rav Ada bar Ahavah, the
Zivus should certainly be considered a sign of weakness, and ought not
therefore to be counted (irrespective of the fact that he saw the Keri when
he was still a Nochri).
(a) Rava finally establishes 'Shichvas-Zar'o' in our Mishnah - with regard
to Tum'as Masa, like we attempted to explain it above (but rejected).
(b) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa is Metamei the Shichvas-Zera of a Zav be'Masa
within twenty-four hours. Rebbi Yossi says - until nightfall.
(c) Rava did not cite the Mishnah in Keilim which specifically lists the
Shichvas-Zera of a Zav among the things that are Metamei be'Masa - because
our Mishnah, as well as the Beraisa, speaks about Shichvas-Zera which he saw
close to the Zivus, whereas the Mishnah in Keilim is even speaking if he saw
it within seven days (Tosfos).
(a) Rebbi Yossi and the Tana Kama argue over Shmuel, who points out an
apparent contradiction between the Pesukim "Ki Yih'yeh B'cha Ish Asher Lo
Yih'yeh Tahor ... Mikreh Laylah" (because he is a Zav) [implying twenty-four
hours] and "ve'Hayah Lifnos Erev Yirchatz ba'Mayim" [which implies until
(b) Rava explains that the Tana Kama stresses the first Pasuk, and Rebbi
Yossi, the second.
1. The Chachamim will explain the Pasuk "Mikreh Laylah" - like Chazal often
do, that the Torah mentions it (not to teach us anything, but) because it is
normal to see Keri during the night.
2. And Rebbi Yossi will explain the Pasuk "ve'Hayah Lifnos Erev ... " - to
exempt Zivus that the Ba'al Keri sees within twenty-four hours (Tosfos - see
(a) Rebbi Nehora'i's source for saying that Shmuel was a Nazir from birth
is - a 'Gezeirah-Shavah': "Morah" (Shmu'el - by the birth of Shmuel) "Morah"
(Shoftim - in connection with Shimshon, whom the Navi specifically describes
as a Nazir).
(b) Rebbi Yossi wants to explain the Pasuk "u'Morah La Ya'aleh al Rosho" -
to mean that neither of them were ever frightened of any human-being (as if
"Morah" was written with an 'Alef', rather than with a 'Hey').
(c) Rebbi Nehora'i disproves Rebbi Yossi however - from the Pasuk in Shmuel,
which describes Shmuel's fear of Shaul (upon receiving instructions to go
and crown David).
(a) What Rav and Rav Huna meant when they advised their respective sons
Chiya and Rabah 'Chatof u'B'rich' was - that they should try wherever
possible, to be the one to Bensh Mezuman (which entailed Benshing aloud on
behalf of all present) because reciting a B'rachah takes precedence over
Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Chanina learns from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "ve'Chol
Banayich Limudei Hashem ve'Rov She'lom Banayich" - that Talmidei-Chachamim
increase peace in the world (see Agados Maharsha and Einei Shmuel).
(b) Rebbi Yossi said in a Beraisa - 'Gadol ha'Oneh Amein Yoser min
ha'Mevarech', seemingly clashing with this idea.
(c) Rebbi Nehora'i substantiated Rebbi Yossi's opinion - with the analogy
of the foot-soldiers who defeat the enemy, and the cavalry who finish the
job, yet the victory is ascribed to them (from which we see that 'everything
goes after the conclusion').
(d) So we conclude that Rav and Rav Huna follow the opinion of the Tana in
another Beraisa - who says that even though the person reciting the B'rachah
and the one who answers 'Amein' are ostensibly on a par with each other, it
is the person who recited the B'rachah who is the first to be rewarded.
***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Kutim' u'Selika Lah Maseches Nazir *****
On to Sotah